1

Is Vocabulary Just About Rote Learning?

In this essay we will explore the requirement of having large amount of

vocabulary in order to understand the world around us in better way. The world
around us is constituted with various real substances with some qualities. These
qualities are either inherent within these substances or perceived through
subjective experience of the object. When we make differentiation between
subjective experience of the object (svaprakāśatā) or self-aware nature of
knowledge and inherence of properties that are attached on to the material objects
(Timalsina 2008), we are taking into consideration the precise nature of
knowledge (jñāna) as something what Nyāya-vaiśeṣika thought of world to be.
According to them whatever that is knowable is namable (RW Perrett 1999). The
way they locate the importance of the words in understanding world is what
makes it easier for us, to recognize the significant importance given to the fact
that individual should have maximum vocabulary in order to be identified as
someone knowledgeable or in more general terms to be more intelligent in
modern world when we think of competitive examinations. These include
vocabulary to be important factor to judge his or her capacities to comprehend
well in particular language.

Just knowing the basic grammar or the way language is constructed is not
sufficient for individual to use language effectively and we need to know some
basic words that are used to construct a simple sentence. This is one way of
looking at the importance of vocabulary based upon a ‘usage of the language’.
But what is fundamental nature of words1 and how do they make it possible for
us to communicate is something which is highlighted by Nyāya-vaiśeṣika school
of Indian philosophy where they talk about padārtha. The word padārtha itself
mean that ‘the word that has some meaning’. (It appears quite funny when we try
think of importance of words through usage of words). When they speak about
padārtha it is the real objects and elements that they refer to in the world around
us. They divide world into particular categories. The metaphysical structure of
reality in this school makes it simpler to attribute meaning to the words and
achieve the relationship between words and these element of the world.
The primary category is said to be dravya (substance), where these substances are
supposed to pre-exist to have some properties attached to them and define its
actual nature. So it cannot be ‘I think therefore I am’ as Descartes famously says

1
Words have some meaning attached to it. Without any meaning words do not exist.

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:20 Oct 2016|Assignment-4

 2

it. According to realist perspective body pre-exist within which we think. So

existence of body is presupposed before the act of thinking. The peculiarity of
this specific category is that these substances are further divided into material and
non-material substances where subject of experience of object is also included to
be one of the substance which is non-material is ātman (soul) and manas (mind)
which is associated with a material body. So substance is something which
possesses guṇa (quality) and karma (motion or action) (King 1999). Substance is
something that cannot exist without these two categories which are indivisible
from substance. These three categories combine together to form a larger
category of satta (existent) as a declaration of something that is real.
When we think of words in parallel to the understanding of this metaphysical
structure of reality, then words are those symbols which hint at some relation to
the substance (dravya) which has some meaning which is related to the property
of the substance (guṇa) and are used with the help of some artificial rules
constructed in some definite framework to make some sense out of series of
words. This meaning which is constructed out of words is nothing but the essence
of the substance or bhāva of the substance. When we think of these categories in
relation with the words in the way which they are used, the importance given to
the vocabulary starts to unfold.
Dignāga proposed the doctrine of exclusion (apohavāda)2 to further rebuff
Nyāya-vaiśeṣika-s acceptance of the reality of universals (samānya) (King 1999).
Where he proposed principle of negation or exclusion. According to him
universals or class-names are constructed negatively which allows functioning in
broader network of signifiers (Arnold 2006). So words don’t build the direct
relationship to the substance but they develop relationship with everything else
than that specific substance. For example, when we call some substance as dog,
we develop the understanding which essentially imply that everything else than
this object is ‘not dog’. This leaves with no other option than to relate that
substance with word dog, which even imply that this substance is not horse, not
cow, not pencil, not human etc. When we take this precise usage of language as
exclusion it becomes evident to actually identify one substance different from
every other substance. To understand nature of substance completely with its
inherent qualities and essence there are two ways to actually locate that substance
different from everything else.
To understand this more clearly we will stick to the example dog where will talk
about one specific quality of dog that ‘dog barks’. To know that dog barks and
derive this conclusion to be true, there are two ways in which we can solve this

2
It is the theory of language and its usage.

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:20 Oct 2016|Assignment-4

 3

problem. First we will have to see and experience each and every dog that is
present on earth to propose that dog barks. By this we can claim that dog barks
unless and until we encounter with some dog which does not bark3. Practically to
claim this relation between dogs and act of barking by pratyakṣa pramāṇa (direct
perception) is impossible where pramā (object of knowledge) is ability of dog to
bark. So there is second way to deal with this practical difficulty is to experience
every dog barking (pratyakṣa pramāṇa) is to ‘infer’ (anumāna) that dog barks.
Here, the idea of exclusion with support of universals comes into play. To infer
that dog barks, we will have to know all other possibilities of substances and
relationships within those substances, to actually say that dogs do not mew as
cats’ mew, dogs do not growl because bears do it or even the fact that dogs do
not croak as frogs do it etc. The possibility to infer something strongly with some
level of certainty is based upon principle of exclusion. This is only possible when
we know what are the other possibilities; than the claim of stating something
obvious. In this same example to claim that something is dog, we will have to
know what are the other animals, to say it is not any of those animal. To state it
is an animal, we will have to know what are the all living things, that are not
animals. To state something is living, we will have to know, what are all non-
living things, that are not living and so on. So this list of substances can go on
towards infinity, unless and until all the substances in the world are not named
with particular word, to make a substantial claim that dogs are not humans.
From above examples and explanations, it is clear to realize why it is significantly
important to expand vocabulary and learn new words all the times. These words
are not only some random symbols to signify one quality or property of the
substance, but even signify the relationship between as many qualities as possible
to one particular substance or object. It is essential to understand meaning of the
word precisely to identify exact relation between word and its meaning to the
substance, because without such careful understanding of the word there is
possibility of stating something, which is not real or false due to possibility of the
same statement to be true in different context. For example, if one says dogs do
not talk when they bark, then there is problem with the statement and ambiguity
in the statement as to say dogs might be talking between themselves that humans
cannot comprehend or communicate back through mode of barking. But this does
not conclude that dogs cannot talk, because act of talking implies making some
sounds or actions to communicate with others who can understand those sounds
or actions4. It is as similar as if some French speaking person says that Japanese

3
We can even conclude that this specific dog is sick or there is some problem with his vocal chords. But here
we are talking specifically about non-barking dog who does not possess quality of barking.
4
Those(humans) who cannot speak use sign language which doesn’t not include any sound in communication

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:20 Oct 2016|Assignment-4

 4

speaking person cannot talk or communicate because he does not understand what
they are trying to say. But when we have precise understanding of words and
what does they exactly mean, when we use it in the particular context, it becomes
feasible to relate to the words outside us and interact with all those elements in
the world which has some meaning attached to it.
So according to Nyāya-vaiśeṣika when they structure the metaphysical categories
of reality, they imply that when something is knowable it can namable. Which
even imply having large sets of vocabulary enables us not only to understand
world clearly but perceive it differently. Remembering more numbers of words
is not only some mechanical act to test our capacity to rote learn something but
in a way it helps us to re-define world and increases the likelihood that we will
look into all possible relation between various elements (satta) into the world. It
might even help us to come out of stereotypes and miss-believes which were
imposed onto us by social hegemony while we grow up learning many things in
our childhood developing ways in which we interact with our surroundings then
it becomes important not only to re-relate existing knowledge but even learn
something new through learning just series of words with precise meaning and
ways in which those words can be used, to redefine humanity and human
understanding of the world. The more we cognize (jñāna5) about what is
happening around us and the world we are living into it becomes little easier to
locate ourselves and our existence within these structures of universe.
Consequently, it drives one to realize internal self and construct some
understanding about his or her identity. In today’s world where we have created
so many complexities while developing some understanding about it, it becomes
essential to step back and reconstruct these understandings by developing new
relations of transactions within world in all possible ways, by knowing more and
developing more knowledge to stabilize the misbalanced world.

5
The term, as used in Nyaya, is cognition that corresponds to the externals

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:20 Oct 2016|Assignment-4

 5

Bibliography
Timalsina, Sthaneshwar. Consciousness in Indian philosophy: The Advaita
doctrine of ‘Awareness only’. Routledge, 2008: 17.
Arnold, Dan. "On semantics and saṃketa: Thoughts on a neglected problem with
Buddhist apoha doctrine." Journal of Indian Philosophy 34, no. 5 (2006): 415-
478.
King, Richard. Indian philosophy: An introduction to Hindu and Buddhist
thought. Georgetown University Press, 1999.
Perrett, Roy W. "Is whatever exists knowable and nameable?" Philosophy East
and West (1999): 401-414.
Words: 1795

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:20 Oct 2016|Assignment-4